Friday, June 17, 2016

It must be difficult being a climate change denier
today. It’s not that any sudden flood of
facts and evidence have suddenly been made available which quashes any serious
dispute about the validity of anthropogenic global warming aka climate change. No, that science and evidence has long been
available, and has been the subject of a massive number of peer-reviewed
academic articles, 5 assessment reports from the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and innumerable popular publications. The “greenhouse effect” that drives global
warming due to industrial emissions of carbon dioxide has been in the
mainstream of scientific thought for over a century.

So it’s not that anything new with science has been making
life difficult for climate change deniers lately – but rather, it’s the shift
that it is so evidently underway in the mainstream media and the public – away from
the use of non-evidence based sources as a starting point in any and every
discussion around climate change, and towards one which uses reality as a
starting point.

In other words, it’s just no longer acceptable to deny the
existence of the climate change paradigm.
If you deny anthropogenic global warming is occurring, you’re in
conflict with reality – and that’s a difficult starting point for any
conversation about climate change.

Climate Change Deniers: Down on Their Luck

Which kind of leaves climate change deniers like Tom Harris
out of luck. Harris, one of Canada’s
most notorious conspiracy theorists, has long held the position that climate
change isn’t real.

“More importantly,
the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is damaging
the climate has been thoroughly debunked by reports such as those of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” Harris wrote in
response to a piece from the Heartland Institute on wind turbines being a
health hazard (see: "Heartland Institute Experts Comment on Wind Turbines Being a 'Human Health Hazard'," October 29, 2015). Clearly, for Harris to
make such a wild claim which conflicts with our scientific reality, he must
subscribe to radical conspiracy theories which have been disproven as fiction
time and again.

Harris and other anti-reality climate change deniers have
become increasingly marginalized by a media and a public which have moved on to
a conversation about climate change that’s focused on what we’re going to do
about it – and not whether it actually exists.
This must be personally frustrating for someone like Harris, who got
used to the spotlight through fossil fuel-funded denier activities. In the
past, Harris tried to take on some truly important and lofty people and
organizations in his bid to convince the public that global warming is actually
a global conspiracy. In today’s media
environment, apparently he’s found himself reduced to challenging what amounts
to Joe Blow members of the public who understand and believe in the reality of
climate change.

The Myths Climate Change Deniers Believe

To my surprise, Tom Harris turned his sights on me this past
week – and if that’s not a sign of how low the might have sunk, I’m not sure
what is. I’m a member of the Green
Party, and a blogger, who writes a column published in my local newspaper once
a month. I’m hardly in the same league
as David Suzuki, Elizabeth May, or the United Nations – which have been the
target of Harris’ anti-reality diatribes in the past. But I guess when you’re down on your luck,
you pick the fights you think you can win.

And for Harris, this really is the sort of fight that he can
mail in, after doing his climate change denial schtick for over a decade. Harris claims that I used a “misleading” term
in a piece published by the Sudbury Star.
The term in question is “carbon pollution”, something Harris claims is
really just carbon dioxide, which he states is “anything but pollution”. With this, he’s evoking the classic denier
myth that carbon dioxide isn’t harmful – a myth the denial industry continues
to perpetuate, even though it doesn’t stand up to even a base level of
scrutiny.

Harris’ critique of my column actually doesn’t say anything
that’s new. It’s almost as if he’s
running a Google Search of the term “carbon pollution” and has a pre-written
Letter to the Editor template that he uses, substituting only the author’s name
in key passages. The attack isn’t
exactly cutting edge.

Nor does it take a lot of energy on my part to refute his
core thesis, mainly because others have done so time and again. Yes, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring
gas in our atmosphere. It helps plants
grow. Without it, there would be no human civilization. And that’s why the term “carbon pollution” is
an important one to use when discussing anthropogenic global warming – aka “climate
change”, because really we are not talking about naturally-occurring carbon
dioxide, but rather the additional carbon dioxide that humans are emitting into
our atmosphere through our fossil fuelled industrial processes. That’s the key. But Harris and other conspiracy theorists
want to confuse people about that.

Why "Carbon Pollution" is a Thing

The term “carbon pollution” is both a scientifically
supportable term and an acceptable colloquialism. To my knowledge, I’ve never
used it in an inappropriate context. But don’t take my word for it – instead,
check out Skeptical Science, who can be counted on to referee these sorts of
disputes.

“How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in
semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore
the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are
severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future
humanity.” (from: “Is CO2 apollutant?” Skeptical Science)

I’ve always maintained that language is important, and as a
result, I’ve always tried to be very careful about the words I use to convey
the ideas that I’m writing about. I’ve
also considered it important to use fact and evidence as the primary vehicle
for advancing a thesis, although like any writer, I’m sure that I’ve used my
share of emotion and rhetoric as well.
What I deliberately try not to do, however, is make up facts and
evidence to suit my own needs – a rule that climate change deniers and
conspiracy theorists like Tom Harris clearly don’t subscribe to. For example, even in his mailed-in attack on
me, Harris insists that carbon dioxide emissions remain a topic of “intense
debate in the science community,” a statement clearly contrary to reality.

Moving On

Tom Harris continues to preach his anti-reality nonsense to
whomever will still listen to him. I don’t
expect this leopard to change his spots no matter how much fact and evidence is
made available to him. Nor am I going to waste my time pointing out to him the
error of his ways, or engaging him on meaningless and irrelevant red herring
discussions about levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere during the
Jurassic.

What surprised me most this week, however, was not that
Harris would choose to turn conspiracy theory vitriol on me (although, as
indicated above, why he’d want to take on a Joe Blow blogger is a little
boggling), but rather that our local newspaper chose to print his screed at all
– especially when he starts the conversation from a point of view in complete
conflict with reality. Publishing this
sort of nonsense does nothing to further any “conversation”. It only succeeds in giving nutters like
Harris a platform to perpetuate their strange, strange point of view.

Earlier this week, we read about the situation where an
argument between individuals over whether the Earth is flat led to property
damage (see: “Cops called after fight breaks out over Earth’s shape in Ontariopark,” the Sudbury Star, June 14 2016). That’s pretty hard to believe in this
day and age – but there are people out there who hold views about the physical
world which are contrary to reality. And
although sometimes these views can come into conflict with the evidence-based
views most of the rest of us hold, it’s not often that Flat Earthers are given
a public platform from which to rant. Tom
Harris and other climate change deniers are no different from Flat Earthers –
both fail to “believe” in science, whether that’s physics or chemistry.

What’s clear to me is that the Sudbury Star – the paper that
I write for – needs to join the rest of society and move on from the “discussion”
about whether climate change is real.
There’s a lot that can be said about how we’re going to deal with the
climate crisis – it’s not as if the media is going to run out of things to
print. But denying the existence of
climate change is out of step with reality – and as such, it’s really not a
myth that our media should be promulgating. I hope that the Sudbury Star, and
other media, think twice in the future about giving precious space to those who
use anti-reality beliefs as the starting points to whatever position they are
arguing.

Take a moment to share your thoughts on this with your local media outlets. If you'd like to let the Sudbury Star know that you're not in favour of seeing anti-reality pieces in their paper, you can send a message to the Editor by filling out this form.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policy and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

The
Commuter Challenge kicked off this Sunday, June 5th. People are encouraged to
walk, cycle, carpool or take the bus to work. Participants can track carbon
emissions saved and calories burned. Local workplaces compete for
bragging rights. In Greater Sudbury, events are planned throughout the week,
including a Kid’s Bike Exchange on Saturday, June 11th at the Farmer’s
Market. It’s the one week of the year where the community comes together
to celebrate active and healthy transportation.

For
the other 51 weeks, we’ll continue to celebrate the car. Not necessarily
because we want to – but because we’ve designed our cities in a way that makes
it convenient for drivers, and inconvenient for all other transportation users.

We
know the benefits of active transportation – walking and cycling are good for
our health, which is important in Sudbury where 32% of the adult population are
considered obese (see: “Obesity (adjustedBody Mass Index)” Sudbury & District Health Unit). And when we’re not driving our motor vehicles, we’re
not burning gasoline, so we save money and carbon emissions. We all know
that we would benefit from making active transportation choices, but it’s just
so easy to reach for those car keys.

Let’s
face it: cars get us to where we want to go, fast and comfortably. Over the
years, our roads have swelled in size to accommodate more cars, travelling at
faster speeds. Even in cities like Greater Sudbury where the population
has been stagnant for decades, we’ve prioritized building public infrastructure
to cater to car convenience – often at the expense of healthy transport
options.

Perversely,
we’ve widened our streets in the name of safety, and built more of them to
battle congestion. We know now that wider streets lead to faster-moving
vehicles, creating less safe environments for all road users. And we know
that due to induced demand, the more streets we build, the more congestion we
get.

With
this in mind, one might expect that we would prioritize healthy, active
transportation choices over widening and building more roads. But the lure of
free-flowing traffic is still the Holy Grail of traffic engineers, and
over-designing our streets remains the order of the day.

Of
course, retrofitting our cities for healthier transportation choices isn’t
something that is going to happen overnight. The poor choices we’ve made
in the past will ensure that there will be added costs to build a minimum grid
for cyclists and create complete streets for all users. Going forward, we can
save money by including active transportation infrastructure on all of our new
roads, and add it to the mix when we refurbish our existing roads.

This
year, the City of Greater Sudbury will be rehabilitating Lorne Street. Plans shared with the community earlier this
year revealed that the new Lorne Street will look much like it does today, only
with fewer potholes (see: "Rehabilitation work proposed on Lorne Street," CBC, April 6, 2016).Lane widths will be
expanded for cars, but there will be no new infrastructure set aside for the
exclusive use of cyclists.Area
residents have petitioned the City to include separated cycling infrastructure,
but the City appears poised to miss yet another opportunity to transform a
major arterial into a truly complete street, with safe dedicated space for all road
users.

Sudburians
are increasingly discovering that there are already many ways of safely getting
around the city without a motorized vehicle. Yet, challenges for commuters
remain. We know the benefits of getting
people out of their cars – a healthier population, lower emissions, and less
congestion on our roads. It's time we
take what we've learned and build the City that a prosperous future requires.

For more information on the National Commuter
Challenge, please visit the Sudbury Cyclist Union’s website.(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Active transport still a challenge in Sudbury," in print, and online as, "Column: Active transport a challenge in Sudbury," June 4, 2016. Some minor updating has occurred to reflect the timing of publication in this blogsite.